TM

NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 

HETA #2003-0029-2923 

Ward Brodt Music Mall 

Madison, Wisconsin 

February 2004 

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports
2 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ii 

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch (HETAB) of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health hazards in the 

workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, following a written request from any employers or authorized 

representative of employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of 

employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found. 

HETAB also provides, upon request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and local 

agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to control occupational health hazards and to 

prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company names or products does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Melissa Finley and Loren Tapp of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, Hazard 

Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Greg Burr, of HETAB, 

DSHEFS. Analytical support was provided by Ardith Grote, a NIOSH research chemist, and DataChem 

Laboratories, Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah). Desktop publishing was performed by Robin Smith. Review 

and preparation for printing were performed by Penny Arthur. 

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at Ward Brodt and the 

OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. The report may be 

viewed and printed from the following internet address: www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/hhesearch.html. Single 

copies of this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this report. To expedite 

your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to: 

NIOSH Publications Office 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 

800-356-4674 

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825 

Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be 

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address. 

For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report 

shall be posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the 

employees for a period of 30 calendar days.
iii 

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION

Evaluation of Acids and Organic Compounds in the Repair Shop

In October 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a Health 

Hazard Evaluation (HHE) request from employees of Ward Brodt Music Mall, Madison, Wisconsin to 

evaluate reports of sore throat, sinus headaches, congestion, asthma, persistent cough, allergies, sneezing, 

and watery eyes among repair shop employees. A site visit was made on January 13 and 14, 2003. 

What NIOSH Did

 We took air samples in the repair shop for 

inorganic acids and volatile organic 

compounds. 

 We checked the ventilation around the repair 

shop work benches and mechanical 

equipment as well as in the rooms used for 

chemical cleaning, buffing, and applying 

spray lacquer. 

 We talked to seven employees in the repair 

shop about the repair operations they 

performed, their exposures and their 

symptoms. 

What NIOSH Found

 All air sample results were very low and far 

below any occupational exposure limits. 

 There were areas of poor distribution in the 

main area of the repair shop. 

 Ventilation in the chemical cleaning, 

buffing, and lacquer rooms was adequate to 

control exposures. 

 Some employees reported recent upper and/or 

lower respiratory (breathing) symptoms and 

skin irritation; breathing symptoms improved 

after the ventilation was improved. 

What Ward Brodt Managers Can Do

 Provide employees with and encourage use of 

appropriate personal protective equipment. 

 Install an emergency eyewash station. 

What the Ward Brodt Employees Can Do 

Hilight 

 Properly use personal protective equipment 

needed for repair operations. 

 Do not eat, drink, or smoke in work areas. 

 Report work-related symptoms to health and 

safety personnel. 

of the HHE Report 

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you 

would like a copy, either ask your health and 

safety representative to make you a copy or call 

1-513-841-4252 and ask for 

HETA Report #2003-0029-2923
iv 

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2003-0029-2923 

Ward Brodt Music Mall 

Madison, Wisconsin 

February 2004

Melissa Finley, MS 

Loren Tapp, MD, MS

SUMMARY

On October 18, 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a 

confidential employee request for a health hazard evaluation (HHE) at Ward Brodt Music Mall in 

Madison, Wisconsin. The request centered on workers’ exposures to acids and solvents during musical 

instrument repair operations, the adequacy of the ventilation in the chemical room, and reported 

symptoms of sore throat, sinus headaches, congestion, asthma, persistent cough, allergies, sneezing, and 

watery eyes. On January 14, 2003, NIOSH investigators conducted an exposure assessment and 

interviewed repair shop workers. Between the time of the HHE request and the site visit, local exhaust 

ventilation was installed in the chemical room. 

Personal breathing zone and general area air samples were collected and analyzed for inorganic acids 

(hydrochloric, nitric, and sulfuric) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Thermal desorption tubes 

were used qualitatively to determine the compounds to analyze. A ventilation assessment consisted of 

“smoke” tube observations and velometer measurements. Hydrochloric acid concentrations ranged from 

not detected (ND) to 0.049 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) and nitric acid concentrations ranged 

from ND to 0.035 mg/m3. Sulfuric acid concentrations could not be determined due to analytical 

problems. Based upon thermal desorption tube results, the VOC samples were analyzed for toluene, 

trichloroethylene (TCE), and total VOCs (reported as octane). Toluene concentrations ranged from 0.06 

to 0.29 parts per million (ppm), TCE concentrations ranged from trace to 0.99 ppm, and total VOC 

concentrations ranged from trace to 0.35 ppm. All of these results were far below applicable occupational 

exposure limits. Ventilation testing using visual “smoke” indicated little air movement over the 

workbenches and around mechanical equipment. A ventilation assessment of the slot hood in the 

chemical room found it within recommended standards. Although no applicable standards exist for the 

ventilation systems in the buffing and lacquer rooms, each area was under negative pressure in 

relationship to the repair shop. 

Confidential interviews were conducted with repair shop employees. Of the seven brass and woodwind 

shop employees interviewed, three had experienced upper and/or lower respiratory symptoms they felt 

were related to acid mist exposure from the chemical room. Two of the three had complete resolution of 

their symptoms after a new ventilation system was installed. At least two of the seven have had mild to 

moderate skin irritation related to their work. These symptoms reportedly improved with skin 

moisturizers and glove use. 

 
v 

Employees’ reports of upper and lower respiratory symptoms could be related to the low 

concentrations of air contaminants measured. It is possible that the reported symptoms were 

related to higher concentration of the irritants that may have been present in the repair shop prior 

to installation of the new ventilation system. Recommendations are provided to further reduce 

employees’ exposures to these chemicals by increasing the level of personal protection for 

workers in the repair shop, and improving ventilation and work practices in the facility. 

Keywords: SIC Code 7699 (Repair Shops and Related Services, Not Elsewhere Classified), musical 

instrument repair, inorganic acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, toluene, trichloroethylene, 

TCE, sore throat, headaches, congestion, asthma, cough, allergies, sneezing, watery eyes, upper 

respiratory symptoms, lower respiratory symptoms, skin irritation. 
Table of Contents 

Preface..........................................................................................................................................................ii

Acknowledgments and Availability of Report..........................................................................................ii

Summary.....................................................................................................................................................iv

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

Background .................................................................................................................................................1

Methods........................................................................................................................................................2

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation...............................................................................................................2

Inorganic Acids ...................................................................................................................................2

VOCs ....................................................................................................................................................2

Ventilation ...........................................................................................................................................3

Medical Evaluation .................................................................................................................................3

Evaluation Criteria .....................................................................................................................................3

Hydrochloric Acid...................................................................................................................................4

Nitric Acid................................................................................................................................................4

Sulfuric Acid............................................................................................................................................4

Chromic Acid ..........................................................................................................................................5

Trichloroethylene....................................................................................................................................5

Toluene.....................................................................................................................................................5

Results ..........................................................................................................................................................6

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation...............................................................................................................6

Inorganic Acids ...................................................................................................................................6

VOCs ....................................................................................................................................................6

Ventilation ...........................................................................................................................................6

Workplace Observations, Work Practices and PPE........................................................................7

Medical Evaluation .................................................................................................................................7
Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................8

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation...............................................................................................................8

Air Sampling........................................................................................................................................8

Ventilation ...........................................................................................................................................8

PPE.......................................................................................................................................................9

Workplace Observations ....................................................................................................................9

Medical Evaluation .................................................................................................................................9

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................9

References..................................................................................................................................................10
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 1 

INTRODUCTION

On October18, 2002, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

received a confidential Health Hazard 

Evaluation (HHE) request from employees of 

Ward Brodt Music Mall in Madison, Wisconsin, 

to evaluate potential health effects from 

exposures related to repairing brass and 

woodwind band instruments. Health symptoms 

of concern that were reported in the HHE 

request included sore throat, sinus headaches, 

congestion, asthma, persistent cough, allergies, 

sneezing, and watery eyes. Employees felt the 

symptoms may be due to exposures to chemicals 

with which they work (including hydrochloric 

acid, chromic acid, sulfuric acid, aqueous 

detergent, Carbo-solTM, acetone, lacquer thinner, 

lacquer, soldering fluxes, and lacquer stripper) 

and inadequate ventilation in the chemical room. 

In response to employee concerns, Ward Brodt 

installed new ventilation in the chemical room 

between the time of the request and the date of 

the NIOSH evaluation. 

On January 13 and 14, 2003, NIOSH 

investigators conducted an HHE site visit at 

Ward Brodt Music Mall. The site visit included 

an opening conference, walk-through inspection, 

observation of work practices, collection of air 

samples for inorganic acids and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) in the repair shop area, 

assessment of the ventilation in the shop area 

and adjacent rooms, confidential employee 

interviews, a review of documents, and a closing 

conference. An interim report, sent February 20, 

2003, described preliminary industrial hygiene 

and medical findings and recommendations. 

This final report contains the results of the air 

sampling and medical interviews, discussion of 

sampling methods, a review of the potential 

health effects from the various chemicals to 

which Ward Brodt employees are exposed, and 

recommendations. 

BACKGROUND

Ward Brodt Music Mall is a 30,000-square feet 

facility providing a wide range of musical 

services including sale and rental of a large 

variety of instruments, sale of sheet music, 

music lessons, instrument tuning and repair, and 

delivery of instruments. The company has been 

in business for 75 years and currently employs 

126 workers, including sales personnel, music 

teachers, repair personnel, and delivery 

personnel. For the past 20 years, Ward Brodt 

has rented and occupied a building which is 

owned by the American TV and Appliance 

Company. A contracting service maintains the 

heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) and electrical systems in the building. 

The repair shop, located in the back of the 

building, includes electronic, string, band (brass 

and woodwinds), and percussion sections. 

Employees from the band instrument group 

requested the HHE. There are six full-time and 

two part-time employees in the band instrument 

repair area. The full-time employees work 40 

hours a week plus one Saturday and one Sunday 

every six weeks. Shop employees are 

instrument repair technicians that undergo a oneto two-year training program to learn the skills 

needed for instrument repairs and/or cleaning. 

In the band instrument section, there are eight 

workstations equipped with tools, spare parts 

and acetylene torches. There are three small 

enclosed areas off the main room of the repair 

shop housing chemical cleaning, buffing, and 

spray lacquer operations. The chemical cleaning 

room has 30-gallon dip tanks of hydrochloric 

acid (HCl) solution, sulfuric acid solution, and 

detergent, as well as a 5-gallon container of nonfuming chromic acid solution. The room also 

has a sink with running water, an air hose, and a 

chemical storage cabinet. The buffing room 

houses a buffing/grinding machine with local 

exhaust ventilation (LEV), and an unvented 

sanding/strapping machine. The spray lacquer 

room has a workbench, exhaust fan, and a 

chemical storage cabinet. 

To repair an instrument, a technician first 

disassembles the instrument and lubricates the 

slides or keys at his/her own workstation. The 

technician then cleans the body of the instrument 

by soaking it in a dip tank located in the 

chemical cleaning room- hydrochloric acid for 

brass instruments, sulfuric acid for silver 

instruments, or detergent. Chromic acid is also 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 2 

stored in this room and used as a brightener. 

After soaking for approximately one minute, the 

technician removes the instrument from the tank 

and scrubs it with a “snake” or uses compressed 

air to “blow it out” at the sink. The technician 

rinses the instrument with water and repeats the 

soak, if necessary. Alternatively, if the 

instrument requires a dry cleaning, the 

technician may use solvents such as acetone or 

Carbo-solTM, containing trichloroethylene 

(TCE), at his/her workbench. The technician 

then dries the instrument, oils the valves, greases 

the slides, and replaces the pads. For final 

repairs and finishing, the technician may, as 

necessary, solder, buff, grind, sand, remove 

dents, or lacquer the instrument. Soldering takes 

place at the technician’s workbench, including 

the use of solder fluxes. Buffing, grinding, and 

sanding the instrument occurs in the buffing 

room. The lacquering process is confined to the 

lacquering room and includes the use of lacquer 

thinner, lacquer stripper, and spray lacquer. 

The chemical room was originally enclosed 

about ten years ago, at which time an acid 

resistant fan was installed. Following 

replacement of the fan about a year ago, it was 

discovered that the exhaust from the chemical 

room was not being vented to the roof, but 

leaking out into the plenum (space above the 

ceiling tiles). Employees also noted that the 

mirror and window in the chemical room 

“clouded up” and tools left in the room were 

rusting. After this discovery, an HVAC 

company was contracted and in mid-October 

2002, a new adjustable speed slot hood was 

installed inches over the dip tanks. 

Workers use an assortment of personal 

protective equipment (PPE), including rubber 

gloves for working with the chemicals, cotton 

gloves for buffing, eye goggles, aprons, and dust 

masks. 

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene 

Evaluation 

A sampling protocol was developed by NIOSH 

investigators after speaking with Ward Brodt 

employees and reviewing Material Safety Data 

Sheets (MSDSs) of the chemicals used in these 

operations. During the sampling survey, NIOSH 

investigators collected full-shift personal 

breathing zone (PBZ) samples of inorganic acids 

and VOCs on two employees. General area 

(GA) air samples for inorganic acid and VOCs 

were also taken in the repair shop and adjacent 

rooms. One 15-minute short-term sample was 

also taken to collect inorganic acid during a 

cleaning operation. Sampling for chromic acid 

was initially anticipated; however, on the day of 

the survey, chromic acid was not used. 

Inorganic Acids 

Full-shift PBZ and GA air samples for acids 

were collected using silica gel sorbent tubes 

attached by Tygon® tubing to sampling pumps 

calibrated at a flow rate of 100 cubic centimeters 

per minute (cc/min) according to NIOSH 

method 7903- Inorganic Acids.1 One 15-minute 

short-term sample was taken at a flow rate of 

200 cc/min to collect acids during the cleaning 

operation. All samples were analyzed by ion 

chromatography. 

VOCs 

Area air samples were collected using thermal 

desorption tubes to identify VOCs. Thermal 

desorption tubes were used qualitatively to 

determine which compounds to analyze 

quantitatively from the charcoal tubes. The 

thermal desorption tubes were attached by 

Tygon® tubing to sampling pumps calibrated at a 

flow rate of 50 cc/min. Each thermal desorption 

tube contained three beds of sorbent material: 

Carbopak Y, Carbopak B, and Carboxen 1003. 

The thermal desorption tubes were analyzed 

using a Perkin-Elmer ATD 400 automatic 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 3 

thermal desorption system equipped with a gas 

chromatograph with a mass selective detector 

(TD-GC-MSD). The sampling and analytical 

techniques for this method are in accordance 

with NIOSH method 2549-Volatile Organic 

Compounds (Screening).1

Full-shift PBZ and GA air samples were 

collected using charcoal tubes attached by 

Tygon® tubing to sampling pumps calibrated at a 

flow rate of 100 cc/min. Based on the thermal 

tube results, toluene, TCE, and total 

hydrocarbons (reported as octane) were 

quantitatively analyzed using a Hewlett-Packard 

(Palo Alto, California) Model 5890A gas 

chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization 

detector. 

Ventilation 

The ventilation assessment consisted of 

velometer measurements and smoke tube 

observations. Velometer (thermoanemometer) 

measurements were made with the VelociCalc® 

Model 8386A (TSI, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota). 

This instrument measures air velocity in feetper-minute (FPM). Three measurements of the 

air velocity were taken across the face of the 

recently installed ventilation system above the 

dip tanks and the results averaged to obtain the 

mean velocity. Velocity measurements were 

also taken of the ventilation at the buffing 

wheels and the exhaust fan in the lacquer room. 

Observations of air flow were made using 

“smoke” released in various locations around the 

repair shop, including in and around the shop 

work benches, chemical room, lacquer room and 

string repair shop. 

Medical Evaluation 

Confidential employee interviews were 

conducted during the site visit. All six full-time 

brass and woodwind shop employees and one of 

the two part-time employees participated; the 

other part-time employee was not available at 

the time of the evaluation. 

The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Log 

and Summary of Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses, Forms 200 and 300 (OSHA 200 and 

300 logs) were reviewed from years 1998 

through 2002. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed 

by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff 

employ environmental evaluation criteria for the 

assessment of a number of chemical and 

physical agents. These criteria are intended to 

suggest levels of exposure to which most 

workers may be exposed up to 10 hours per day, 

40 hours per week for a working lifetime 

without experiencing adverse health effects. It 

is, however, important to note that not all 

workers will be protected from adverse health 

effects even though their exposures are 

maintained below these levels. A small 

percentage may experience adverse health 

effects because of individual susceptibility, a 

pre-existing medical condition, and/or a 

hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some 

hazardous substances may act in combination 

with other workplace exposures, the general 

environment, or with medications or personal 

habits of the worker to produce health effects 

even if the occupational exposures are controlled 

at the level set by the criterion. These combined 

effects are often not considered in the evaluation 

criteria. Also, some substances are absorbed by 

direct contact with the skin and mucous 

membranes, and thus potentially increase the 

overall exposure. Finally, evaluation criteria 

may change over the years as new information 

on the toxic effects of an agent become 

available. 

The primary sources of environmental 

evaluation criteria for the workplace are: (1) 

NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits 

(RELs),2

 (2) the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) 

Threshold Limit Values (TLVs®),3

 and (3) the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible 

Exposure Limits (PELs).4

 Employers are 

encouraged to follow the OSHA limits, the 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 4 

NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or whichever 

are the more protective criteria. 

OSHA requires an employer to furnish 

employees a place of employment that is free 

from recognized hazards that are causing or are 

likely to cause death or serious physical harm 

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

Public Law 91–596, sec. 5(a)(1)]. Thus, 

employers should understand that not all 

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA 

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term 

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still 

required by OSHA to protect their employees 

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific 

OSHA PEL. 

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure 

refers to the average airborne concentration of a 

substance during a normal 8- to 10-hour 

workday. Some substances have recommended 

STEL or ceiling values which are intended to 

supplement the TWA where there are 

recognized toxic effects from higher exposures 

over the short-term. 

Hydrochloric Acid 

Hydrochloric acid (HCl), the aqueous form of 

hydrogen chloride, is irritating and corrosive to 

any tissue it contacts. Brief inhalation exposure 

to low concentrations can cause throat irritation. 

Long-term exposure to low levels can cause 

respiratory problems, eye and skin irritation, and 

discoloration of the teeth.5 Exposure to relatively 

high concentrations can result in rapid breathing, 

narrowing of the bronchioles (airways in the 

lungs), blue coloring of the skin, and 

accumulation of fluid in the lungs. Exposure to 

even higher levels can cause swelling and spasm 

of the throat, suffocation, and even death. Some 

people may develop an inflammatory reaction to 

hydrochloric acid. This condition is called 

reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), 

a type of asthma caused by some irritating or 

corrosive substances.5 It is unknown if exposure 

to hydrochloric acid can result in reproductive 

effects. The Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS), the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have 

not classified hydrochloric acid as to its 

carcinogenicity. IARC considers hydrochloric 

acid to be not classifiable as to its 

carcinogenicity to humans.6

The NIOSH REL2, ACGIH TLV3, and OSHA 

PEL4 for hydrochloric acid are 7 milligrams per 

cubic meter (mg/m3), 2 mg/m3, and 7 mg/m3, 

respectively, as ceiling values. 

Nitric Acid 

Nitric acid is a corrosive liquid which severely 

irritates the skin and eyes upon contact. Nitric 

acid mist can irritate the nose, throat, and lungs 

and cause dental erosion. Lung irritation causes 

coughing and/or shortness of breath and 

exposure to high concentrations can cause 

pulmonary edema (a build-up of fluid in the 

lungs).7 Ingestion of nitric acid 

will result in severe throat and stomach 

destruction. 

NIOSH2, ACGIH3, and OSHA4 have all set 

TWA exposure limits for nitric acid at 5 mg/m3. 

NIOSH and ACGIH also have STELs at 10 

mg/m3 for this substance. 

Sulfuric Acid 

Sulfuric acid is a severe irritant to the eyes, 

mucous membranes, and skin. Concentrated 

sulfuric acid is a corrosive; it can cause severe 

burns on contact. Sulfuric acid mists can cause 

eye, nose, and throat irritation, respiratory 

irritation (manifested by cough and difficulty 

breathing), and dental erosion. The extent of 

respiratory irritation depends on factors such as 

air concentration, particle size, temperature, and 

humidity.8 NIOSH2, ACGIH3, and OSHA4 have 

established an exposure limit for sulfuric acid of 

1 mg/m3 as a TWA to prevent dental erosion and 

the irritant effects of exposure. ACGIH has 

recently established a notice of intended change 

to 0.1 mg/m3 for their TLV.3 

Epidemiologic studies have indicated that 

exposure to sulfuric acid mist and other acid 

mists are associated with cancer. After review 

of these studies, the IARC determined that there 

is sufficient evidence that occupational exposure 

to strong inorganic acid mists containing sulfuric 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 5 

acid is carcinogenic.6 This determination was 

based on the demonstration of epidemiologic 

associations between occupational exposures to 

strong acid mists (mostly sulfuric acid mists) 

and excess risks for laryngeal cancer9,10,11,12 and 

lung cancer.13,14,15 A study of cancer in the 

general population (not just workers) found that 

any exposure to sulfuric acid was associated 

with cancer of the esophagus, but an association 

between higher exposure and higher risk was not 

established.15

Chromic Acid 

Chromic acid (CrO3) is a corrosive chemical and 

can cause severe irritation and burns of the skin 

and eyes, irritation of the nose, throat, and lungs 

causing coughing, wheezing and/or shortness of 

breath. Chromic acid can also cause sores and 

erosion of the nasal septum, and may cause an 

allergic skin dermatitis. The hexavalent 

chromium [Cr(VI)] form is also considered to be 

a carcinogen in humans by the World Health 

Organization (WHO), EPA, and NIOSH. Birth 

defects have been seen in animals exposed to 

Cr(VI).16 Exposure limits for airborne chromic 

acid [measured as Cr(VI)] by NIOSH2, ACGIH3, 

and OSHA4 are 0.001 mg/m3, 0.05 mg/m3, and 

0.1 mg/m3, respectively. The NIOSH REL (10-

hour TWA) is 0.001 mg Cr(VI)/m3 for all 

hexavalent chromium compounds. NIOSH 

considers all Cr(VI) compounds (including 

chromic acid) to be potential occupational 

carcinogens. NIOSH recommends that 

exposures to potential occupational carcinogens 

be limited to the lowest feasible concentration.2

Trichloroethylene 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a volatile liquid at 

room temperature and can affect the central 

nervous system, heart, skin, and possibly the 

liver and kidney. The most frequently reported 

symptoms related to excessive exposure include 

headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, vertigo, 

fatigue, mental dullness, sleepiness, 

lightheadedness, insomnia, and burning eyes.17

Experimental studies in animals have shown that 

TCE may be carcinogenic.18 After a special 

review of experimental and epidemiologic data, 

NIOSH concluded that TCE a potential 

occupational carcinogen, although not a potent 

one.19 NIOSH recommends that exposures to 

potential occupational carcinogens be limited to 

the lowest feasible concentration.2 In addition, 

NIOSH recommends a REL of 2 ppm (as a 

60-minute ceiling) during the usage of TCE as 

an anesthetic agent and 25 ppm (as a 10-hour 

TWA) during all other exposures. The ACGIH 

TLV is 50 ppm for an 8-hour time-weighted 

average.3 The OSHA PEL for trichloroethylene 

is 100 ppm with a 15-minute STEL of 200 ppm.4

Toluene 

Toluene is a colorless, aromatic organic liquid 

containing a six carbon ring (a benzene ring) 

with a methyl group (CH3) substitution. It is 

found in paints and other coatings, and is used as 

a raw material in the synthesis of organic 

chemicals, dyes, detergents, and 

pharmaceuticals. 

Inhalation and dermal absorption are the major 

routes of entry in occupational exposures. 

Excessive exposure to toluene can cause acute 

irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. 

Since it is a defatting solvent, repeated or 

prolonged skin contact will remove the natural 

lipids from the skin which can cause drying, 

fissuring, and dermatitis.20, 21 Studies have 

shown that subjects exposed to 100 ppm of 

toluene for six hours complained of eye and 

nose irritation, and in some cases, headache, 

dizziness, and a feeling of intoxication 

(narcosis).22,23,24 No symptoms were noted 

below 100 ppm in these studies. The main 

effects reported with excessive (inhalation) 

exposure to toluene are CNS depression and 

neurotoxicity.20 There are a number of reports 

of neurological damage due to deliberate 

sniffing of toluene-based glues resulting in 

motor weakness, intention tremor, ataxia, and 

cerebellar and cerebral atrophy.25 Recovery is 

complete following infrequent episodes of this 

type of exposure, however, permanent 

impairment may occur after repeated and 

prolonged glue-sniffing abuse. Exposure to 

extremely high concentrations of toluene may 

cause mental confusion, loss of coordination, 

and unconsciousness.26,27
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 6 

The NIOSH REL for toluene is 100 ppm for up 

to a 10-hour TWA.2 NIOSH has also set a 

recommended STEL of 150 ppm for a 15-minute 

sampling period. The ACGIH TLV is 50 ppm 

for an 8-hour exposure TWA with a skin 

notation, indicating that cutaneous exposure 

contributes to the overall absorbed inhalation 

dose and potential systemic effects. 3 The 

OSHA PEL for toluene is 200 ppm for an 8-hour 

TWA. 4

RESULTS

Industrial Hygiene 

Evaluation 

The limits of detection (LOD) describe the 

amount of substance below which it cannot be 

detected on the sample. The limits of 

quantification (LOQ) describe an amount of 

substance above the LOD, but not enough to 

quantify accurately. The LOD and LOQ are 

values determined by the analytical procedure 

used to analyze the samples, and are not 

dependent on sample volume. Minimum 

detectable concentrations (MDCs) are the 

minimum detectable air concentrations and are 

determined by dividing the LODs by air sample 

volumes appropriate for the given set of 

samples. Minimum quantifiable concentrations 

(MQCs) are determined by dividing the LOQs 

by air sample volumes for the given set of 

samples, and reflect a concentration above the 

MDC but not enough to quantify accurately. In 

determining the MDC and MQC for this study, 

the highest sample volumes were used from the 

area air sampling data and from the PBZ air 

sampling data for each type of sample. These 

values are included in the tables, as appropriate. 

Inorganic Acids 

The results of the analysis of the silica gel tubes 

for HCl, nitric, and sulfuric acids are 

summarized in Table 1. All results were well 

below any occupational exposure criteria. 

Analysis revealed the presence of all three acids 

on the field blanks.* Because of this, the 

 

*

A field blank is a piece of sampling media that 

undergoes similar handling of the sampling 

exposure concentrations included in this report 

represent the blank-corrected results. 

Additionally, analysis revealed the presence of 

sulfuric acid on the media blanks.** Because of 

this, the results for sulfuric acid are not included 

in this report. 

VOCs 

Charcoal tube air samples were quantitatively 

analyzed for toluene, TCE, and total 

hydrocarbons (as octane). Results are 

summarized in Table 2. All results revealed 

individual concentrations to be well below 

applicable occupational evaluation criteria. 

Ventilation 

On the day of sampling, the temperature inside 

the building ranged from 69-70oF and the 

relative humidity (RH) ranged from 16-20 

percent (%). The results of the ventilation 

assessment in the acid room showed a face 

velocity of 1000 FPM and a flow of 220 cubic 

feet per minute (CFM) with the dial controlling 

the fan speed at its lowest setting. According to 

information provided by North American 

Mechanical Corporation (the company 

responsible for the installation of the new 

ventilation), the fan speed can be adjusted to 

allow a flow of 500 CFM. Even at its lowest 

setting, the ventilation appropriately created 

negative pressure in the chemical room in 

relation to the rest of the shop. 

The exhaust air velocity at the left buffing wheel 

was 200 FPM, and the velocity at the right 

 

media to be used, including being opened and 

exposed to the field environment, but on which 

no sample is collected. Analysis of this blank is 

important to detect any contamination that may 

occur during the transport and handling of the 

samples. 

**A media blank is a piece of sampling media 

taken from the lot of sampling media to be used, 

but is not opened in the field. Analysis of this 

blank is important to detect any contamination 

on the sample media material itself. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 7 

buffing wheel was 400 FPM. The fan in the 

lacquer room was measured at 120 FPM. Both 

the buffing and spray lacquer rooms were under 

negative pressure in relation to the repair shop 

when the exhaust fans were operating. 

Based on the smoke tube observations, some 

areas of stagnant air existed over the work 

benches and metal- and woodworking machines 

located around the shop. The air in these areas 

is vented only by the general HVAC system in 

the room. This air in the shop is not circulated 

in the rest of the store. 

Workplace Observations, Work 

Practices and PPE 

NIOSH investigators spoke with repair shop 

technicians to learn about typical work practices. 

Findings are summarized below along with 

observations made by NIOSH investigators of 

the workplace and work practices on the day of 

the survey. 

• Tasks such as acid washes, buffing, and 

lacquering take very little time (only one to 

ten minutes). This has lead to a general 

feeling that personal protective equipment, 

such as respirators, gloves, and goggles, is 

not needed. Additionally, its use is not 

enforced by management for normal 

operations. 

• Filtering facepiece respirators were worn by 

less than half of the employees when 

buffing, and respiratory protection was 

never worn during lacquering. 

• Three employees used gloves fairly 

regularly in the chemical room. Outside of 

the chemical room, gloves were seldom 

worn except for big jobs that increased the 

potential for skin exposure to acid solutions. 

No gloves were worn when applying CarbosolTM (TCE) since employees stated that 

they would fold up a rag and dip it into the 

solvent without getting it on their skin. 

• Goggles were worn routinely when working 

on the buffing, lathe, or band saw machines, 

but rarely in the chemical room or lacquer 

room. 

• A break room is available near the repair 

shop, but employees are allowed to eat and 

drink at their workbench. 

• No emergency eye wash station was 

provided in the immediate vicinity of the 

acid dip tanks. 

• The dip tanks containing the acids and 

solutions used in the cleaning operation 

were unlabeled. 

• Acids and oxidizers were placed in the same 

storage cabinet as organic compounds. 

• The sprinkler head in the lacquer room was 

not protected. 

• Water-damaged ceiling tiles were noticed in 

the repair shop area. The reason for the 

damage was unknown. 

Medical Evaluation 

Of the seven employees interviewed, 4 were 

male; the average age was 39 years (ranging 

from 25 to 46 years); and the average length of 

time from first hire was 10 years (ranging from 

1.5 to 18 years). Of these seven employees, 

three reported experiencing upper and/or lower 

respiratory symptoms (irritated throat, hoarse, 

raspy voice, and persistent cough) they felt were 

related to acid mist exposure from the chemical 

room. Symptoms of irritated throat and hoarse 

voice would reportedly develop at work, 

gradually worsen by the end of the day, and then 

resolve when away from work in the evening. 

Medical treatment had been sought in the past 

by two of the symptomatic workers. Two of the 

three had complete resolution of their symptoms 

after a new ventilation system was installed. At 

least two of the seven employees have had mild 

to moderate skin irritation that they thought was 

work-related; the skin problems reportedly 

improved with use of skin moisturizers and 

gloves. 

OSHA 200 and 300 logs, from years 1998 

through 2002, revealed there were four entries 

for repair technicians; one for shoulder strain 

(2002), one for a finger laceration, one for a 

broken ankle (2001), and one for skin eczema 

(2000). 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 8 

DISCUSSION AND 

CONCLUSIONS

Industrial Hygiene 

Evaluation 

Air Sampling 

None of the air samples collected by NIOSH for 

VOCs or acids yielded concentrations that 

exceeded any occupational exposure limit 

(OEL). However, many of these chemicals have 

low odor thresholds (meaning they can be 

smelled at low concentrations) or could possibly 

cause mucous membrane irritation at low 

concentrations in sensitive individuals. 

Sampling was conducted over the full work-shift 

for HCl. Although no standard for an eight-hour 

TWA for HCl exists, this sampling was 

conducted to represent the worst-case scenario. 

Since the workers were only present in the 

chemical room for a few minutes at a time, the 

actual exposure would be even lower throughout 

the day. The very low HCl concentrations 

measured over the full shift are consistent with 

the lack of HCl detected on the 15-minute shortterm sample. Although sulfuric acid was 

potentially present in the air of the repair shop, 

the results of the air sampling for this analyte 

could not be determined because of possible 

sample contamination. However, based on 

observations of the technician’s tasks and work 

practices, exposures to sulfuric acid in this work 

setting are unlikely to be above any relevant 

OEL. 

 

NIOSH recommends that exposures to TCE be 

limited to the lowest feasible concentration 

because of its potential carcinogenicity. 

Although TCE concentrations in the air of the 

repair shop are currently very low, its presence 

could be eliminated by using solvents which do 

not contain TCE. The most probable source of 

TCE in the repair shop environment is from 

Carbo-solTM. Since repair shop employees claim 

that this solvent is used rarely and in small 

quantities, its substitution is not likely to 

adversely affect operations. 

Ventilation 

Based on ventilation recommendations from 

ACGIH, the chemical room ventilation is 

adequate.28 Because no sampling was 

performed before the ventilation was installed, 

the concentrations of the contaminants in the air 

at that time are unknown. However, our 

sampling data support the conclusion that the 

current ventilation is adequately controlling 

exposures and containing them within the 

chemical room. 

The buffing wheel system LEV appeared to 

adequately control exposures, although the 

capture hood could be located closer to the 

wheel. Employees reported that the exhaust 

hood needed to be adjustable to accommodate 

the various sizes of instruments used on the 

machine. 

The wall-mounted exhaust fan in the lacquer 

room was sufficient to keep the room under 

negative pressure in relation to the repair shop. 

This situation helps control exposures during the 

lacquering operations. 

As illustrated by the smoke tubes, the air over 

the work benches and metal- and woodworking 

machines located around the shop was vented 

only by the normal HVAC system in the room. 

This arrangement may not be desirable since this 

general ventilation is not intended to provide 

LEV for the repair operations such as cutting, 

grinding, soldering, and lathing. 

Air temperatures measured on the sampling date 

were within acceptable limits of the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 29 

However, the RH levels were below the 

ASHRAE comfort guidelines of 30-60%.29 

Despite this, humidification is not generally 

recommended since the ventilation system was 

not designed for humidification and high 

humidity levels can also be problematic. 

Although not in use on the day of sampling, 

humidifiers were reported to be used in the 

building for comfort, as needed. These units use 

a moistened pad that must be properly 

maintained and cleaned to avoid problems with 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 9 

microbial contamination. As long as these units 

are routinely cleaned, they can be used for 

humidification purposes. 

PPE

Skin contact can be a significant route of 

exposure to solvents, and contact dermatitis of 

the hands and forearms can be a problem for 

workers exposed to these chemicals. Therefore, 

gloves, aprons, and eye goggles to protect skin 

and eyes from solvents and acids are 

recommended. Eye goggles would be more 

effective than eye glasses in protecting the eyes 

from contact with chemicals in the event of a 

splash or spill during mixing. For the nature of 

the operations at this facility, gloves made of 

butyl rubber would be appropriate to protect 

against inorganic acids (HCl, nitric, sulfuric, and 

chromic acids) and solvents such as acetone. If 

different acids or solvents are used in the future, 

a further glove material evaluation may be 

needed. 

Workplace Observations 

Allowing employees to eat and drink at their 

workstations is undesirable because of leadcontaining solder and solvents used. 

Contaminated hands can lead to ingestion of 

metals and chemicals. To avoid contamination 

and possible ingestion of potentially harmful 

substances such as residue from soldering and 

solvents on hands, workers should be 

discouraged from eating and drinking at their 

work bench. 

According to OSHA, employers must provide an 

emergency shower and eye-wash station close to 

the dipping or coating operation when 

employees work with liquids that may burn, 

irritate, or otherwise harm their skin. In place of 

this equipment, a water hose that is at least four 

feet (1.22 meters) long and at least 3/4 of an inch 

(18 millimeters) thick with a quick-opening 

valve and carrying a pressure of 25 pounds per 

square inch (1.62 kilogram/centimeter2) or less 

may be used. 30

OSHA also requires employers to ensure that 

each container of hazardous chemicals in the 

workplace is labeled, tagged or marked to 

identify the hazardous chemical contained 

therein and to provide at least general 

information regarding the hazards of the 

chemicals so employees will have specific 

information regarding the physical and health 

hazards of the hazardous chemical.31

Allowing materials such as acids, oxidizers, and 

organic compounds to be stored in the same 

cabinet is undesirable because these materials 

are incompatible. Accidental mixing or spilling 

of these chemicals could cause an adverse 

chemical reaction. 

The sprinkler head in the lacquer room was 

unprotected, a situation which could potentially 

allow lacquer to accumulate on the sprinkler 

mechanism and cause it to malfunction. 

Medical Evaluation

Air sampling revealed exposures to very low 

concentrations of substances in use at the 

facility. Although acid concentrations measured 

during our site visit were below recommended 

exposure limits, symptoms consistent with 

work-related acid exposures (respiratory 

symptoms and irritated throat, eyes, and skin) 

were indicated on the request and reported in 

this evaluation. It is possible that repair shop 

employees may have been exposed to greater 

concentrations of these substances in the past. 

The types and severity of symptoms depend in 

part on the extent of the individual’s exposure, 

and the susceptibility of the individual (for 

example, whether they have pre-existing 

allergies, eczema, or asthma). The NIOSH 

investigators found that most employees 

reported resolution of their symptoms after the 

ventilation was improved. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Modified work practices and use of appropriate 

personal protective equipment will likely reduce 

skin contact with substances used by repair shop 

employees. Additionally, although none of the 

sample results exceeded any occupational 

exposure limits, steps may be taken to further 

reduce employees’ inhalation exposures to 

chemicals used in the repair shop. The 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 10 

following recommendations are based on 

observations made during the survey and are 

intended to help ensure the safety and health of 

the repair shop workers by further reducing 

employees’ exposures. 

1) Encourage the use of safety glasses during 

buffing operations and butyl rubber gloves 

when handling acids and acetone. In 

addition to butyl rubber gloves, safety 

goggles and an apron should be worn during 

mixing in the chemical room. 

2) Install an emergency eyewash station in the 

chemical room. 

3) Do not store incompatible materials, such as 

acids and oxidizers, near organic 

compounds. One option would be to store 

organic solvents in the lacquer room cabinet. 

4) Ensure that all tubs and containers of 

chemicals are labeled with the appropriate 

information. 

5) Restrict eating and drinking in the repair 

shop area. Workers should wash hands prior 

to eating and drinking during their shift. 

6) Although the ventilation in the repair shop is 

adequately controlling exposure, further 

steps could be taken to minimize employees’ 

occupational exposures. 

a) Provide LEV for the metal- and 

woodworking machines located in the 

shop during the repair operations and to 

help reduce the overall dustiness of the 

shop. 

b) Adjust the exhaust hood at each buffing 

wheel closer to the part during buffing 

operations. 

c) Install a passive vent in the door or wall 

of the chemical room to permit the 

exhaust fan to operate more efficiently. 

7) Substitute a less toxic chemical for the 

solvent containing TCE. 

8) Protect the sprinkler head in the lacquer 

room. 

9) Encourage employees to report all suspected 

work-related health problems to designated 

health and safety personnel at Ward Brodt 

Music Company. Those employees who 

continue to experience health symptoms 

should be evaluated by a physician 

experienced in occupational illnesses. 

REFERENCES

1

 NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH manual of analytical 

methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-

113. 

2

 NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for 

occupational safety and health: compendium of 

policy documents and statements. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 92-100. 

3

 ACGIH [2001]. 2001 TLVs® and BEIs®: 

threshold limit values for chemical substances 

and physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists. 

4

 CFR [1997]. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

5

 ATSDR [2003]. ATSDR Tox Profiles; Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Website 

accessed 6/12/2003: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts173.html 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 11 

6

 IARC [1992]. IARC monographs on the 

evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: 

Occupational exposures to mists and vapours 

from strong inorganic acids; and other industrial 

chemicals. Vol. 54. Lyon, France: World Health 

Organization, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer. 

7

 NJDHSS [2001]. Hazard substance fact sheet: 

Nitric Acid. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey 

Department of Health and Senior Services. 

Website accessed 8/29/03: 

http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/odisweb 

8

 NIOSH [1974]. Criteria for a recommended 

standard: occupational exposure to sulfuric acid. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 

Center for Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, 

DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 74-128. 

9

 Ahlborg G, Hogstedt C, Sundell L, et al 

[1981]. Laryngeal cancer and pickling house 

vapors. Scand J Work Environ Health 7:239-

240. 

10 Soskolne CL, et al [1984]. Laryngeal cancer 

and occupational exposure to sulfuric acid. Am 

J Epidemiol 120:358-369. 

11 Steenland K, Schnorr T, Beaumont J, et al 

[1988]. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and 

exposure to acid mists. Br J Ind Med 45:766-

776. 

12 Soskolne CL, Jhangri GS, Siemiatycki J, 

Lakhani R, Dewar R, Burch D, et al. [1992]. 

Occupational exposure to sulfuric acid in 

southern Ontario, Canada, in association with 

laryngeal cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health 

18:225-232. 

13 Beaumont JJ, Leveton J, Knox K, Bloom T, 

McQuiston T, Young M, et al. [1987]. Lung 

cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric 

acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI 79:911-

921. 

14 Steenland KN, Beaumont J [1989]. Further 

follow-up and adjustment for smoking in a study 

of lung cancer and acid mists. Am J Ind Med 

16:347-354. 

15 Siemiatycki J (ed.) [1991]. Risk factors for 

cancer in the workplace. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press, p. 156. 

16 ATSDR [2001]. Division of Toxicology 

ToxFAQs. Chromium ToxFAQ, February 2001 

(accessed 6/13/2003 via website: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html 

17 NIOSH [1978]. Special occupational hazard 

review of trichloroethylene. Cincinnati, OH: 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 77-152. 

18 NCI [1976]. Carcinogenesis bioassay of 

trichloroethylene, TR-2. Washington, DC: 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

National Cancer Institute, DHEW (NCI) 

Publication No. 76-802. 

19 NIOSH [1988]. NIOSH testimony to the U.S. 

Department of Labor: statement of the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s proposed rule on air 

contaminants, July 1988. NIOSH policy 

statements. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, Centers for Disease Control, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

20 Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP [1996]. 

Proctor and Hughes’Chemical Hazards of the 

Workplace. 4th ed. New York, NY: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold. 

21 NIOSH [1973]. Criteria for a recommended 

standard: occupational exposure to toluene. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 

Center for Disease Control, National Institute for 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0029-2923 Page 12 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW 

(NIOSH) Publication No. 73-11023. 

22 WHO [1981]. Recommended health-based 

limits in occupational exposure to select organic 

solvents. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health 

Organization, Technical Report Series No. 664, 

pp.7-24. 

23 Benignus VA [1981]. Health effects of 

toluene: a review. Neurotoxicology 2:567-88. 

24 Andersen I, Lundqvist GR, Molhave L, 

Pedersen OF, Proctor DF, Vaeth M, Wyon DP 

[1983]. Human response to controlled levels of 

toluene in six-hour exposures. Scand J Work 

Environ Health 9:405-18. 

25 EPA [1983]. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Science Advisory Board Report No. 

EPA-SAB-EHC-82-007: Health assessment 

document for toluene. Washington, DC: 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

26 Bruckner JV, Petersen RG [1981]. Evaluation 

of toluene and acetone inhalant abuse I. 

Pharmacology and pharmacodynamics. Toxicol 

Appl Pharmacol 61:27-38. 

27 Bruckner JV, Petersen RG [1981]. Evaluation 

of toluene and acetone inhalant abuse II. Model 

development and toxicology. Toxicol Appl 

Pharmacol 61:302-12. 

28 ACGIH [2001]. Industrial Ventilation. 24th ed. 

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

29 ASHRAE [1992]. ASHRAE standard: thermal 

environmental conditions for human occupancy. 

Atlanta: American Society of Heating 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 

Inc. ASHRAE 55-1992. 

30 CFR [2002]. 29 CFR 1910.124. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 

31 CFR [2002]. 29 CFR 1910.1200. Code of 

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Office of the 

Federal Register. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 13 

Table 1 Results of Acid Sampling 

January 14, 2003 

Ward Brodt Music Mall 

HETA 2003-0029-2923 

Concentration, mg/m3

Sample Type Person/ Location 

Sample Volume 

(L) Hydrochloric 

Acid Nitric Acid 

PBZ Tech 1 35 trace 0.035 

PBZ Tech 2 35 trace ND 

PBZ-ST Tech 1 3 ND ND 

GA 

Outside Chemical 

Room 37 0.010 ND 

GA 

Inside Chemical 

Room 38 0.049 0.030 

GA 

Tech 3 

Workbench 34 trace ND 

GA 

Tech 4 

Workbench 35 trace trace 

Minimum Detectable Concentration 38 0.0027 0.0053 

Minimum Quantifiable Concentration 38 0.0108 0.0132 

Occupational Exposure Limits 

OSHA PEL1 7 [C] 5 

NIOSH REL2 7 [C] 5; 10 [STEL] 

ACGIH TLV 3 3 [C] 5; 10 [STEL ] 

1-Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit 

2- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Recommended Exposure Limit 

3- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value 

L = liter 

mg/m3

 = milligrams per cubic meter 

PBZ = personal breathing zone 

PBZ-ST = personal breathing zone - short term 

GA = general area 

trace = detected value was between MDC and MQC 

ND = not detected, value below MDC 

C = ceiling exposure limit 

STEL = short-term (15 minutes) exposure limit. 

*Sulfuric Acid levels are not reported due to possible contamination on the sample collection media. 
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. Page 14 

Table 2 Results of VOC Sampling 

January 14, 2003 

Ward Brodt Music Mall 

HETA 2003-0029-2923

Concentration, ppm Sample 

Type 

Person/ 

Location 

Sample 

Volume 

(L) Toluene TCE Total VOC [Octane] 

PBZ Tech 2 34 0.29 0.99 0.35 

PBZ Tech 5 25 0.12 0.14 trace 

GA 

Tech 1 

Workbench 36 0.07 0.10 0.16 

GA 

Outside Lacquer 

Room 38 0.06 0.08 0.13 

GA 

Inside Lacquer 

Room 39 0.08 trace 0.15 

GA 

Tech 3 

Workbench 35 0.08 0.06 0.31 

Minimum Detectable 

Concentration 39 0.0061 0.0143 0.0384 

Minimum Quantifiable 

Concentration 39 0.024 0.0477 0.1098 

Occupational Exposure Limits 

OSHA PEL1 200 100 500 

NIOSH REL2 100 25 75 

ACGIH TLV 3 50 50 300 

1-Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit 

2- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Recommended Exposure Limit 

3- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value 

L = liter 

ppm = parts per million 

PBZ = personal breathing zone 

GA = general area 

trace = detected value was between MDC and MQC 

LFL = lowest feasible level 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for private use $300 

Delivering on the Nation's promise: 

Safety and Health at work for all people 

through research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or information 

about occupational Safety and Health topics 

contact NIOSH at: 

1-800-35-NIOSH (356-4674) 

Fax: 1-513-533-8573 

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at: 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

S A F E R • H E A L T H I E R • P E O P L ETM